349 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9737492)
1. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache.
Hesterman CM; Szperka CL; Turner DP
Headache; 2018 Nov; 58(10):1511-1518. PubMed ID: 30011058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.
Lamb CR; Mai W
Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2015; 56(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 24798652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
Parikh LI; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Hazen N; Chescheir NC
Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 129(2):243-248. PubMed ID: 28079780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peering Into Peer Review:
Provenzale JM; Buch K; Filippi CG; Gaskill-Shipley M; Hacein-Bey L; Soares BP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):45-49. PubMed ID: 31670589
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
Polak JF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. "This Manuscript Was a Complete Waste of Time": Reviewer Etiquette Matters.
Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Driessen EW; Maggio LA
Acad Med; 2019 Jun; 94(6):744-745. PubMed ID: 31136334
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?
Justice AC; Berlin JA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH; Goodman SN
JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):117-9. PubMed ID: 8015119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
